Author Topic: Natural Explanation Vs Magical  (Read 9870 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline junebug72

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2036
  • Darwins +72/-83
  • Gender: Female
  • "Question Everything"
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #145 on: April 01, 2014, 08:06:41 AM »
You have raised several questions

6:
You think humans arrived on a fully formed planet with fully formed everything and Satan buried fossils to fool us? You do not see a species of animals having similarities and all, say, species of mammals having similarities, and all life having related DNA as perhaps hinting at something?

You would think it reasonable if we had never invented or thought of a car that suddenly a fully equipped Ford Mustang would appear on earth, devoid of anything that led up to that car and its technology and design.

I explained, very briefly how life evolves. You have never read anything worthwhile on the subject of evolution and prefer magic... OK... I don't suppose that you are going to harm yourself, but,please, don't tell anyone else this as if it is real... they might believe you and thus suffer a life of ignorance and superstition.

I can't help but think you are motivated by your POV, atheism, to accept this logic so eagerly.  I must give it more scrutiny.  I don't see how that makes me naive.

You still need work on those people skills GB.  People skills...

I do NOT believe in devils or demons. Give me a break!  I do NOT believe in magic. 

I will definitely insist that questioning evolution is critical thinking just as questioning theism is.

You have raised several questions
1:
Then why are there still worms, fish, reptiles and other mammals,
I hear this a lot. I see it as a question that shows really limited critical skills when it comes to thought. I hear it mainly from people who read the above bit about cornflakes and ask why there are still big bits of cornflakes... : )


Or to be a bit more direct: Since glass is made from sand, if glass exists, does that mean sand no longer exists?

If sand was a mammal that needed a reproduction system to make glass to survive I would suspect sand to have a fully developed reproduction system. 

That issue was not addressed in GB's reply.
Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.
Thomas Paine

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_paine.html#XXwlhVIMq06zWg2d.99

Offline Dominic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 914
  • Darwins +6/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #146 on: April 01, 2014, 10:38:33 AM »
Theists who argue about first cause are coffee table philosophers. They assume that the universe began fully formed and argue how that happened. The modern level of causality and non causality in the universe was a process which took about three minutes. As this happened quanta were slowly trapped in the net of causality which created mass and then the "something appeared from nothing" creating matter, first as plasma (like the sun's atmosphere) then after several hundred thousand years, ordinary matter in the form of hydrogen and helium.

Lawrence Krauss' theory of a universe from nothing is a consistent description of how universes begin "because they can" without causality. No theory of the universe which claims causality for the Big Bang has any evidence to support it whatsoever, whether it is a god or a scientific explanation such as a rebounding universe. The evidence is going in the direction of Krauss with self assembling causality and zero energy of creation.

Foxy

You are the only atheist who is actually facing reality in this thread.

That doesn't mean you are right : - )  but you are honestly and intelligently facing the issues.

minor point 1 -
I do not assume the universe began fully formed.  I am not even certain that it began at all ie it may have always existed and its form is quite likely to have changed dramatically through time.

minor point 2 -
Your text above sounds like you are expressing some certainty about the first 3 minutes of the universe!  I'll assume that you are simply expressing a theory held by some people.  Because surely making claims about the first 3 minutes is almost certainly as unverifiable as someone making claims about the alleged 7 days of biblical creation!

Any mention of such theories should contain a very tentative 'maybe' in every sentence.

major point -
But more significantly I am interpreting you to be saying that non-causality is a more basic phenomenon than causality and that causality can and sometimes does arise or emerge from(?) or within(?) a non physical(?) background which is perhaps best described by the term 'nothing'!

If you are saying something like this then not only do I agree with you but something akin to this must necessarily be true.  Not because of dogma (which can never determine truth) but because causality itself is essentially a secondary phenomenon by its very nature.

Richard Dawkins said on Australian TV that 'nothing' is turning out to be a very complex thing (or words to that effect).  He got a bit upset when the studio audience laughed - but cosmologists know what he is talking about and know that there is good sense in it.

Some cultures speak of 'the void' as rather than what we might think of as 'complete absence', more like an essential primitive nature from which everything else may emerge (and to which everything will return).

Another name for this general concept could be 'possibility' itself - unmanifested.

And may I add one more name for this difficult to describe phenomenon - The uncaused

I'm generally not expecting a positive response to this message Foxy but I will be very interested to hear your take.



Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #147 on: April 01, 2014, 11:01:46 AM »
1. A first event or an eternal existence are not natural since they are not caused......

As Foxy did, I'll stop you there.  Presumably you are defining "natural" as being "something that we would observe and agree as true following the laws of the universe as we understand them".

While it may not apply to "eternal existence", it certainly makes "first event" a (at the very least) possibility.  Because what your first point is then stating is:

"A first event could not have occured under the laws of the universe that were in place subsequent to the first event".....which is true.  But the opposite is also true: ""A first event could have occured before the laws of the universe established by that first event came into effect."  So to me, a first event spontaneously generating itself could quite easily be "natural" under the laws in operation at the time.

As a concept, to me its a little like saying that everyone in the library is quiet, because thats the rule in the library.  But someone just about to enter the library could be noisy, because they are not yet covered by the rules of the library.  That's a very poor analogy, but its the best I can come up with at the moment!
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Dominic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 914
  • Darwins +6/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #148 on: April 01, 2014, 11:27:38 AM »
1. A first event or an eternal existence are not natural since they are not caused......

As Foxy did, I'll stop you there.  Presumably you are defining "natural" as being "something that we would observe and agree as true following the laws of the universe as we understand them".

While it may not apply to "eternal existence", it certainly makes "first event" a (at the very least) possibility.  Because what your first point is then stating is:

"A first event could not have occured under the laws of the universe that were in place subsequent to the first event".....which is true.  But the opposite is also true: ""A first event could have occured before the laws of the universe established by that first event came into effect."  So to me, a first event spontaneously generating itself could quite easily be "natural" under the laws in operation at the time.

Are you are saying that in a 'no rule' environment then any occurrence is 'natural' ?

If so then God sneezing the universe into existence (in that environment) would have been natural.

And the OP of this thread would be null and void.


Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1439
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #149 on: April 01, 2014, 11:37:59 AM »
Thanks Dominic, I will work on a detailed reply. Briefly...

The first three minutes are reasonably well known except for the first fraction of a second. High energy particle experiments give the necessary information. The early universe contained nothing else so it was in a way very simple.

Causality arises from non causality in various ways depending on the forces involved. In non causality existence and non existence are not separate, they are in equilibrium with each other.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6698
  • Darwins +533/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #150 on: April 01, 2014, 12:17:23 PM »
I can't help but think you are motivated by your POV, atheism, to accept this logic so eagerly.
I don't think atheism comes into it any more than accepting that gravity causes objects on earth to fall to the ground.

I do expect posters like Skeptic to come up with ideas about God inventing "intelligent falling".
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline junebug72

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2036
  • Darwins +72/-83
  • Gender: Female
  • "Question Everything"
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #151 on: April 01, 2014, 01:34:05 PM »
I can't help but think you are motivated by your POV, atheism, to accept this logic so eagerly.
I don't think atheism comes into it any more than accepting that gravity causes objects on earth to fall to the ground.

I do expect posters like Skeptic to come up with ideas about God inventing "intelligent falling".

Then why is it that only atheist acknowledge this theory as the only way possible?  Theist certainly don't believe that evolution created mankind.  You still have not explained how humans reproduced before their reproduction systems were fully developed or any sexual reproducing creatures.

I am not Skeptic.  Bless his heart. 8)
Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.
Thomas Paine

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_paine.html#XXwlhVIMq06zWg2d.99

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1784
  • Darwins +191/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #152 on: April 01, 2014, 03:12:31 PM »

Then why is it that only atheist acknowledge this theory as the only way possible?
This ^^^ is wrong.....
Quote
Theist certainly don't believe that evolution created mankind. 
...because THIS ^^^ is wrong. LOTS of theists believe that evolution is simply the mechanism used by their creator. That attitude goes a long way toward reducing the deafening cognitive dissonance caused by repeatedly trying to deny what is so obviously true.

Quote
You still have not explained how humans reproduced before their reproduction systems were fully developed or any sexual reproducing creatures.
There are literally thousands of resources that cover this topic readily available online. College campuses across the country offer courses in evolution that explain all the questions you are asking. I'm willing to speculate that there are free college classes online that will do so as well.

Quote
I am not Skeptic.  Bless his heart. 8)
One of him is more than enough. Thank you for trying to avoid duplicating his nonsense.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2014, 03:14:38 PM by Jag »
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #153 on: April 01, 2014, 05:15:27 PM »
Logic needs time? So does that mean your god is illogical? If so, we may have found something to agree on.
You are right. I should have precised that I was talking of human logic. God's logic is different, more respective of our freedom.
You're worth more than my time

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6459
  • Darwins +768/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #154 on: April 01, 2014, 05:22:11 PM »
Logic needs time? So does that mean your god is illogical? If so, we may have found something to agree on.
You are right. I should have precised that I was talking of human logic. God's logic is different, more respective of our freedom.

Why does god respect our freedom so much that he lets little kids get murdered and stuff? Presumably he could prevent such tragedies, but he doesn't bother. Or, if you have a good excuse for offing kids, why can't he do something about the hundreds of thousands that died in the tsunami a few years back. Or was he just offering a huge group discount to people dying that day and wanted to help?

Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #155 on: April 01, 2014, 06:59:45 PM »
Logic needs time? So does that mean your god is illogical? If so, we may have found something to agree on.
You are right. I should have precised that I was talking of human logic. God's logic is different, more respective of our freedom.

Oh? Please do tell. What exact "logic" is this and by what means have you discovered it? Please give direct examples.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #156 on: April 01, 2014, 08:22:06 PM »
Oh? Please do tell. What exact "logic" is this and by what means have you discovered it? Please give direct examples.
Well of what I know of infinity is that it's bigger than me. So a bigger mind than mine. So a way to reason differently than mine/ a different logic. Even some humans that are called genius didn't have the same logic than I did, some they taught me their own logic!
You're worth more than my time

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2720
  • Darwins +221/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #157 on: April 01, 2014, 09:19:47 PM »
Logic needs time? So does that mean your god is illogical? If so, we may have found something to agree on.
You are right. I should have precised that I was talking of human logic. God's logic is different, more respective of our freedom.

He only respects our freedom, because BibleGod is not there. You wouldn't say that, if he was going around interfering. The fact that he is not interfering, means that you don't have any evidence for what you just said.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2720
  • Darwins +221/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #158 on: April 01, 2014, 09:21:38 PM »
Oh? Please do tell. What exact "logic" is this and by what means have you discovered it? Please give direct examples.
Well of what I know of infinity is that it's bigger than me. So a bigger mind than mine. So a way to reason differently than mine/ a different logic. Even some humans that are called genius didn't have the same logic than I did, some they taught me their own logic!

BibleGod works in mysterious ways, so that believers can ascribe anything they like to him, whilst pretending he respects our freedom, by not interfering.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1593
  • Darwins +60/-31
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #159 on: April 01, 2014, 10:13:40 PM »
first cause or what caused the first cause are not one and the same thing, at some point there was no before to cause the first cause - on a micro physics level the causal relationships break down time is an artefact or a by-product.

on a physics classical level newton's laws are symmetric under time reversal, there is no way to tell back from forward without measuring entropy.

primitive religions are interesting cos there is no psychological imperative for a linear casual reality - i have spoken to many indigenous elders that can not comprehend the present as an intersection between past and future that itself occupies no time.


the dominant culture has lost so much by dismissing authentic indiginous  knowledge, breaks my heart. i feel so fortunate and priveliged to have caught a glimpse of these smashed beaten cultures at the hands of christians.

Signature goes here...

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #160 on: April 02, 2014, 02:18:32 AM »
Logic needs time? So does that mean your god is illogical? If so, we may have found something to agree on.
You are right. I should have precised that I was talking of human logic. God's logic is different, more respective of our freedom.

What a crock of shit.  Logic is logic - things are either A or not A. I can't believe the depths you are stooping to in order to cling on to something you agree is illogical.

Look, with me and you only being human 'n all, we can only use "human" logic to make assessments on the existence or non-existence of things. To pander to some other type of "logic", a logic that from our perspective is indistinguishable from being illogical, is to completely abandon and concede any argument you have on the subject. You have reduced your god to an absurdity, yet are happy to use this as an excuse to continue accepting it. Why would you do that with anything, "Hey guys, this doesn't make any sense to any of us - a great reason for us to believe it!" I mean, come on.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #161 on: April 02, 2014, 03:21:03 AM »
Are you are saying that in a 'no rule' environment then any occurrence is 'natural' ?

Nope.  What I am saying is that "natural" relates to the "rules" in operation at the time.  I don't believe that at any point I claimed there were NO rules?

If so then God sneezing the universe into existence (in that environment) would have been natural.

There's no actual description of how most gods created stuff, so a god sneezing the universe into being is as plausible as waving his hands or thinking real hard.

Equally, before the current physical laws came into play (that say things above quantum level do not spontaneously create), it would be possible for a non-quantum thing to spontaneously generate, under the laws operating at that point.  Naturally.

The point of the OP I think is that a god by definition breaks any "natural" laws in operation.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1439
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #162 on: April 02, 2014, 04:04:50 AM »
Are you are saying that in a 'no rule' environment then any occurrence is 'natural' ?

If so then God sneezing the universe into existence (in that environment) would have been natural.

And the OP of this thread would be null and void.

.....and don't confuse "no rule" with "no cause". You have changed the terms to suit yourself.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1439
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #163 on: April 02, 2014, 05:19:04 AM »
1) first cause or what caused the first cause are not one and the same thing, at some point there was no before to cause the first cause - on a micro physics level the causal relationships break down time is an artefact or a by-product.

2) on a physics classical level newton's laws are symmetric under time reversal, there is no way to tell back from forward without measuring entropy.

3) primitive religions are interesting cos there is no psychological imperative for a linear casual reality - i have spoken to many indigenous elders that can not comprehend the present as an intersection between past and future that itself occupies no time.


the dominant culture has lost so much by dismissing authentic indiginous  knowledge, breaks my heart. i feel so fortunate and priveliged to have caught a glimpse of these smashed beaten cultures at the hands of christians.

1) Forget first cause. Causality is generated all the time, right now. "Micro"....Causality does not breakdown, when it was never there. Time is not an artefact.

2) Yes, this is also why eternally perfect universes don't have to obey "normal" laws of time. Time can form loops and reverse and when time changes direction they can snuff themselves out of existence. Worst of all, you can have the same bad day more than once. Eternally perfect universes are not so perfect after all.

3) Linear Causal Reality is what keeps us in existence. Linear time is the framework. Causality makes existence stable so that you don't spontaneously cease to exist.

So, Lukvance, since you believe in alien visitors, maybe I can offer you a ride in my time and space machine called the TARDIS. You can see some of the problems with eternally perfect universes and timelessness for yourself. I can set the controls to accelerate very fast so that you will be microwaved and vapourized by the ambient energy. If you don't like that kind of death which might happen in a perfect universe, I can also offer you death by timelessness. All I have to do is set the controls to zero and you will cease to exist permanently. You will be pleased to know that it is instantaneous so there is no pain involved. You can't say I am not thoughtful of you.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3885
  • Darwins +258/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #164 on: April 02, 2014, 07:28:06 AM »
Logic needs time? So does that mean your god is illogical? If so, we may have found something to agree on.
You are right. I should have precised that I was talking of human logic. God's logic is different

You are using special pleading and begging the question. Your logic is wrong.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3885
  • Darwins +258/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #165 on: April 02, 2014, 07:31:45 AM »
. Why would you do that with anything, "Hey guys, this doesn't make any sense to any of us - a great reason for us to believe it!"

Not exactly an unprecendented line of argument coming from the theist camp. Stupid, yes, but not unprecedented. It is the basic argument of the accolading "faith" Faith, which is just a warm fuzzy happy word for credulity.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2014, 07:49:22 AM by Hatter23 »
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline junebug72

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2036
  • Darwins +72/-83
  • Gender: Female
  • "Question Everything"
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #166 on: April 02, 2014, 07:44:56 AM »

There are literally thousands of resources that cover this topic readily available online. College campuses across the country offer courses in evolution that explain all the questions you are asking. I'm willing to speculate that there are free college classes online that will do so as well.

Quote
I am not Skeptic.  Bless his heart. 8)
One of him is more than enough. Thank you for trying to avoid duplicating his nonsense.


If it were soooooo obvious I would not need college courses to catch on. ;)  I'll be back in 4 years with my reply. :o

You wouldn't have a link to one of those sites would you?

Your welcome. ;)

Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.
Thomas Paine

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_paine.html#XXwlhVIMq06zWg2d.99

Offline Dominic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 914
  • Darwins +6/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #167 on: April 02, 2014, 09:50:38 AM »
Are you are saying that in a 'no rule' environment then any occurrence is 'natural' ?

If so then God sneezing the universe into existence (in that environment) would have been natural.

And the OP of this thread would be null and void.

.....and don't confuse "no rule" with "no cause". You have changed the terms to suit yourself.


My reference to "no rules" related to me misunderstanding anfauglir and thinking he was speaking of a period before any laws (which I called rules) existed, but he wasn't.

 I was not referring to "first cause" in that message.


Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3012
  • Darwins +265/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #168 on: April 02, 2014, 10:08:26 AM »
I should have precised that I was talking of human logic. God's logic is different, more respective of our freedom. 

(Springy G lays down Her cards, revealing a royal flush in spades, and takes pot away from Biblegod)  I hereby declare the freedom of all sentient beings to refuse any and all afterlife punishment and to design their own destinies in perpetuity, no questions asked, no faith required.

That, sir, is "freedom" in a more meaningful sense of the word.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Dominic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 914
  • Darwins +6/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #169 on: April 02, 2014, 10:25:24 AM »
Greybeard

Are you saying that "not caused" = "magical" ?  That things are either caused or else magical ?  Are those the possibilities we must choose from ?

If so then to avoid a conclusion of magic we must have eternal causality ?  Is that logically sound ?  Isn't that equivalent to 'Turtles all the way down' ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down


Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2720
  • Darwins +221/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #170 on: April 02, 2014, 10:40:42 AM »
Greybeard

Are you saying that "not caused" = "magical" ?  That things are either caused or else magical ?  Are those the possibilities we must choose from ?

If so then to avoid a conclusion of magic we must have eternal causality ?  Is that logically sound ?  Isn't that equivalent to 'Turtles all the way down' ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Whenever I see a movie with magic in it, where there is supposedly some kind of world where magic is the norm, I wonder how waving a stick and saying some words, manages to create something. I'm OK with magic, if there is some underlying principle that transforms thought into form, but they seem to do it without thought. Arguably, the magic is caused by the wand or desire.

When I program something, I become aware of how unmagical reality is, since everything needs to be specified to the nth degree. I long for the era where a computer can magically write a large program for me, so I don't have to think, or know anything.

Uncaused could be things happening without thought, or desire, as depicted on Hitchhiker's Guide, with the Heart of Gold spaceship.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1784
  • Darwins +191/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #171 on: April 02, 2014, 04:38:48 PM »

There are literally thousands of resources that cover this topic readily available online. College campuses across the country offer courses in evolution that explain all the questions you are asking. I'm willing to speculate that there are free college classes online that will do so as well.

Quote
I am not Skeptic.  Bless his heart. 8)
One of him is more than enough. Thank you for trying to avoid duplicating his nonsense.


If it were soooooo obvious I would not need college courses to catch on. ;)  I'll be back in 4 years with my reply. :o

You wouldn't have a link to one of those sites would you?

Your welcome. ;)

Didn't say it was obvious, just readily available. I'll see if I can find a free course; if so I'll post a link and PM you as well.
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1784
  • Darwins +191/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #172 on: April 02, 2014, 04:57:55 PM »
Ok, that was quick.

online courses from MIT I've taken two (?three?) classes through this portal

http://www.openculture.com/freeonlinecourses   I have no experience with openculture's structure, but have heard positive things from others

What I'm pointing you toward are "mooc" offerings - massive open online courses, and there are a huge number of them available. I can't speak to the credibility of all of them, but I've found courses from Yale, Harvard, Stanford, and many other reputable schools. Google MOOC and start poking around at which schools offer what courses, you may be surprised at how much you can teach yourself if you have the patience and discipline to take classes online - it's different than a physical classroom and in some ways it can be harder.
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #173 on: April 02, 2014, 06:45:33 PM »
He only respects our freedom, because BibleGod is not there. You wouldn't say that, if he was going around interfering. The fact that he is not interfering, means that you don't have any evidence for what you just said.
He is going around helping people, changing lives. He even changed mine.
You're worth more than my time